Re: mod_wasm: Contributing Upstream to Apache
Would be great to marry it to apreq, too. On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 4:04 PM Joe Schaefer wrote: > It is impossible to run mod_h2 without it or similar. > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 3:37 PM Eric Covener wrote: > >> > We are still very interested in contributing this module upstream and >> helping to maintain it. Please, let us know what improvements or changes >> would be needed for it to be considered ready for inclusion. >> >> As a pessimistic PMC member not caring about WASM or these languages, >> I worry that marrying the lifecycle together is not advantageous for >> either side. Of course I worry about being stuck with the pieces when >> employer interest wanes or after turnover. It does not seem like it's >> strictly necessary to be part of the server distribution (there are >> many examples of successful out-of-tree modules). >> >> However the above is no veto. >> >
Re: mod_wasm: Contributing Upstream to Apache
It is impossible to run mod_h2 without it or similar. On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 3:37 PM Eric Covener wrote: > > We are still very interested in contributing this module upstream and > helping to maintain it. Please, let us know what improvements or changes > would be needed for it to be considered ready for inclusion. > > As a pessimistic PMC member not caring about WASM or these languages, > I worry that marrying the lifecycle together is not advantageous for > either side. Of course I worry about being stuck with the pieces when > employer interest wanes or after turnover. It does not seem like it's > strictly necessary to be part of the server distribution (there are > many examples of successful out-of-tree modules). > > However the above is no veto. >
Re: mod_wasm: Contributing Upstream to Apache
> We are still very interested in contributing this module upstream and helping > to maintain it. Please, let us know what improvements or changes would be > needed for it to be considered ready for inclusion. As a pessimistic PMC member not caring about WASM or these languages, I worry that marrying the lifecycle together is not advantageous for either side. Of course I worry about being stuck with the pieces when employer interest wanes or after turnover. It does not seem like it's strictly necessary to be part of the server distribution (there are many examples of successful out-of-tree modules). However the above is no veto.
Re: mod_wasm: Contributing Upstream to Apache
Hola! I wanted to update you on our progress since we have recently published new WebAssembly builds for several language runtimes, including: - PHP 8.1.11 and 8.2.0 - Python 3.11.1 - Ruby 3.2.0 With the inclusion of multi-module support in the mod_wasm v0.10.0 release, Apache can now serve different applications written in these languages using just mod_wasm, all under the WebAssembly security model. We also opened a pull request (PR#335) about a month ago that includes the source code, documentation, and scripting needed to build mod_wasm as an experimental module, as well as a test to build it on Travis CI. We are still very interested in contributing this module upstream and helping to maintain it. Please, let us know what improvements or changes would be needed for it to be considered ready for inclusion. Thanks!
